On one hand, I totally support the aims of the blog (e.g. awareness and deconstruction of couple priviledge) and I think it is very important; and, there's a lot of good stuff. I feel that since I do have one non-domestic and one domestic partner, I am happy to get perspective on what kinds of things it is easy to disregard that are important from other perspective.

On the other hand, there are things that limit the usefulness for me. Besides the use of primary/non-primary distinction that I reject, I keep running into these cultural assumptions of coupledom that just baffle me. Or, simultaneously don't and do. I guess I'm in a bubble where I lead autonomous relationships, and have people close to me who also lead autonomous relationship. So I sometimes almost forget how intertwined, coupley, the cultural model of romantic relationship is.

But, for example, this kind of advice "8. Invite non-primary partners into negotiations and decisions that affect them." feels just non-applicable (even if I filter out the primary connotations thing and read it in terms of who I live with etc.). I find it difficult to even articulate why it doesn't resonate. I make my own decisions. Obviously, I talk with people they affect. Is that the invite, talking to people? And obviously, the people affected are free to tell me their opinions and ask for anything they would like to be done differently, and obviously I will consider these things (and may or may not do them). And then we'll talk some more about it. Is that the negotiation part?

There's some weird cultural couple unity that does things like makes decisions. That somehow makes a communal decision by couple AB something different to a decision made by both A and B. That somehow takes away the agency of both A and B in merging them to AB. That somehow makes the responsibility for choices invisible.